Sandy Hook A Hoax?...

[Sarah G]

In a nutshell: the Sandy Hook murders didn't appear in the "Newtown" columns of Connecticut's UCR and the FBI's report because the murders were officially processed and reported by the Connecticut State Police (not the Newtown Police), a fact that's reflected in both the state and federal crime stat reports. In other words, the "0" data point entry for the Newtown murders is not a 'smoking gun'.

The question as to why the State Police handled and reported on the incident is still fair game (and there may be some issues for truth-seekers to exploit in that regard), but this business of claiming that "the FBI says there were no murders in Newtown in 2012" ...needs to stop.

So why do you continue to bump this silliness? It was not a hoax and anyone who chooses to debate it is a moron. Jan 2013? Comon. I haven't posted here until today, years after I first saw the stupid title.

Just stfu about it. Jeezus...

 

[Manonthestreet]

 

[SteadyMercury]

Heh another youtube warrior weighs in...

 

[SAYIT]

Heh another youtube warrior weighs in...

And a 2hr, 46min YouTube warrior at that. Do none of them have real lives?

 

[SteadyMercury]

Seriously dude.

I struggle to hang in there with movies that long in the theater, imagine some poor sap starting at youtube for that long then when finished triumphantly posting it here for everyone else to do the same.

Unreal.

 

[daws101]

Seriously dude.

I struggle to hang in there with movies that long in the theater, imagine some poor sap starting at youtube for that long then when finished triumphantly posting it here for everyone else to do the same.

Unreal.

it's on you tube because it's a targeted production like all fetish stuff.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Seriously dude.

I struggle to hang in there with movies that long in the theater, imagine some poor sap starting at youtube for that long then when finished triumphantly posting it here for everyone else to do the same.

Unreal.

It was a compilation..not just one.

 

[Capstone]

It was a compilation..not just one.

Great documentary. Thanks for posting it in this thread.

Notice, despite its appeal to 'fair use' and the clearly displayed disclaimer at the beginning, the uploaded video you posted here has already been deleted by YouTube for a "copyright claim" (which may not have been a valid cause for deletion). It's still available on YouTube under various other accounts, but it seems a pretty safe bet that no single upload of the documentary will be allowed to garner a significant number of views before disappearing for some reason or other. So, here's a link to what I believe was the initial posting of the video online at mediasolidarity.com.

 

[SAYIT]

It was a compilation..not just one.

It's still available on YouTube under various other accounts, but it seems a pretty safe bet that no single upload of the documentary will be allowed to garner a significant number of views before disappearing for some reason or other...

Yeah ... 'cause everyone except you and a handful of CT fuktards was in on it.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Maybe you should watch and then try debating what was presented.

 

[Capstone]

Maybe you should watch and then try debating what was presented.

Who? SAYIT?!

 

[Manonthestreet]

Maybe you should watch and then try debating what was presented.

Who? SAYIT?!

Yes and anyone else who hasnt and just wants to spew

 

[Capstone]

Yes and anyone else who hasnt and just wants to spew

Rational discussion based on any facts presented by those who don't blindly support the officially-authorized account is beyond the purview of people like SAYIT.

If you're planning on sticking around these parts for an appreciable amount of time, you'd best get used to it.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I've been gone for about a year and this is still going on?
Pitiful......

 

[Capstone]

I've been gone for about a year and this is still going on?
Pitiful......

Yes, SAYIT is still at it with the hit-and-run insults and nothing of substance. It really is pitiful.

Or did you mean something else?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There are some here who have not even a shred of human decency. My heart goes out to the parents and families of those poor slaughtered kids. They're facing another xmas without the babies they cherished and they must live with the knowledge of how they died.

 

[Capstone]

Here's a link to an article by James Tracy about the production and post-production challeges faced by the 60-some people involved in the making of the documentary that was first shared here by Manonthestreet.

I've excerpted and highlighted the portions relevant to YouTube's deletion of that embedded video.

. . .Long before the documentary was completed, it was determined that the usual method by which the video would be disseminated through YouTube would not work in this case. Many of the members had been stung previously by having videos flagged or removed through claims of copyright or privacy infringement. YouTube is heavily invested in the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) implementation, having designed an automated system by which to prevent copyright violations.

One component of the system is built into YouTube’s uploading function. As videos are uploaded, they are screened for audio that matches anything within a massive database of copyrighted material. If a match is found, one of two things happens. Either the uploader is presented with the option of disputing the claim or accepting it as accurate, or YouTube simply rejects the video on the basis of it being a violation of their terms. The second major component of their DMCA system involves the copyright owner making a claim against a particular video. In this process, the owner of the material flags the offending video and YouTube responds automatically by taking the video offline while notifying the video’s producer that a claim has been made. The video producer at this point must either accept the claim as accurate and forfeit the video or dispute the claim, at which time notice of the dispute is sent to the claimant.

The unfortunate side-effect of the overall process is that, during a 10 day period in which the claimant has to choose whether to take further action the video is offline.

As you might imagine this policy of allowing anyone to make a claim against any video is easily abused. The function largely favors claimants over producers of videos the claims are made against. As it stands, anyone can make a claim against any video to have it removed for a period of between 10 days and 3 weeks, and the uploader of the video has no recourse whatsoever. They are simply not afforded a means to legally challenge the claim aside from the initial dispute option. But this does nothing to prevent the take down of the video. It’s this concerning reality at the root of the next story behind the story.

As mentioned, the group chose not to upload their documentary to YouTube. After researching the options, it was determined that Vimeo would likely be the best home for the video. So, on November 30th it was uploaded to a newly established Vimeo account, a trailer was loaded to the group’s YouTube account and those of the participants. Despite there having been little hype in the time preceding its release, many people began to watch and the buzz was that people liked it.

Within less than 24 hours, Vimeo removed the video and sent notice that it was removed due to a violation of their terms. Here is the relevant text of that message…

Your video “We Need to Talk about Sandy Hook” has been removed for violating our Guidelines. Reason: Vimeo does not allow videos that harass, incite hatred or depict excessive violence.

If you haven’t yet seen the video, this might appear to be a legitimate reason for its removal. However, if you have seen the video it’s very unlikely that you’ll find the reason given to make much sense. There simply isn’t anything that could be construed as harassment or inciting of hatred. Not only is their not excessive violence, there’s no violence depicted at all. Therefore, it appears that Vimeo chose to remove the video for other reasons. I won’t begin to speculate what those reasons were and the group hasn’t bothered to inquire further into the matter. Both Vimeo and YouTube are notoriously steadfast in their take-down decisions and rarely, if ever provide detailed explanations for them.

Although the plan had been to load the video to a secondary host as back-up, that simply hadn’t been done when the primary source at Vimeo was removed. Being faced with a newly-released video now totally unavailable, the decision was made to upload it to the group’s YouTube channel. Although it was predicted that it wouldn’t last more than a day or two, this seemed the quickest way to make the video viewable again. Concerned about and fully expecting it to be removed from YouTube, the group also scrambled to upload the video to Archive.org, which seemed like a suitable back-up source.

By this time there was a growing buzz across the Internet in places where conspiracies were discussed as well as matters of free speech. The group began to receive numerous requests through the simple contact form on its website for a copy of the video that people could upload to their channels both on YouTube and elsewhere. A completely unexpected phenomenon was showing its first signs when discussions of the take down by Vimeo was seen as unfair censorship. This generated more interest, the assumption being that for it to have been taken down so quickly what it contained must be bombshell material.

Although the matter of whether any material in the video constitutes being described as “bombshell” is relative, this notion did lead to increased interest. As the group struggled to ensure the video was viewable, considering the take-down of it at Vimeo to be a setback it was in no way a ruse by them to gen up interest through promoting a perceived notion of scarcity. This appears to have been an organic phenomenon.

Be sure to click to expand the quote box.

The entire article is well-worth the read, but the portions I've highlighted support my previously stated reason for linking directly to the documentary at Mediasolidarity.com.

See, SAYIT? That's called 'proving my claim' as 100% legitimate.

You should try it sometime.

 

[Capstone]

Nobody feels greater empathy than I do for the victims/families of the Sandy Hook horror that was and continues to be perpetrated against the populace (largely by their own tacit complicity, which is fostered in the tendency of many Americans to accept without question whatever their masters tell them to accept, no matter how badly it flies in the faces of the available evidence and other obvious realities). The only hope for justice for the people effected by any deaths that may have actually occurred in and around Newton on December 14, 2012, stands on following the evidence to wherever it leads and demanding that the perpetrators pay.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I've been gone for about a year and this is still going on?
Pitiful......

Welcome back, SFC Ollie.

 

[Manonthestreet]

After the Sandy Hook “school shooting,” the State of Connecticut made a bizarre move.

CT locked down ALL Death Certificates — for any deaths in the entire State of CT.

Governor Malloy signed three Orwellian bills into law, after they were crammed thru at 2AM, “for the children.”
In other words, the rightful owner of Obama’s SSN died in the SAME TOWN where the historic “Newtown school massacre” occurred. Just 1 mile away.

Same State (CT). Same town (Newtown). Same town clerk’s office with same records (Newtown town clerk). Was Sandy Hook Used to Bury Obama s SSN Records Memory Hole